Interesting article on the Straussians ("Nobel lies and ..") that you and Lola referred to, btw, Blatham - I was reading the first half just now - there appears to be some slight correlation with what I was struggling to phrase in words in my last, above post to georgeob1 (re: the Iraq parallel).
Nimh, interesting discussion. It is useful to consider some details of the US military preparedness in 1980. After the Vietnam war and the low priorities assigned to military readiness under Carter, the readiness of our forces was at a low ebb. Pilots had been severely rationed in the quantity and quality of their flight training and proficiency was low. Although we had six modern aircraft carriers on each coast, we had ammunition for only three - returning and deploying ships transferred their ammunition at sea. Air Force Wings suffered from the same problems. New aircraft were only just beginning to be introduced - most of the force dated from the early '60s. (and we lost over 500 combat aircraft in Vietnam which had not yet been replaced). The number of active Navy ships was falling every year. Training of Army units was limited due to budget constraints. We had even unilaterally stopped the rework and modernization of our nuclear weapons arsenal.
Meanwhile the Soviet Union was rapidly increasing the size of its combat air arms and Navy, and introducing numerous new weapons, aircraft and ships that were truly formidable in design and capability. (It was much later that we learned that, though brilliantly designed, these systems were often poorly constructed and even more poorly maintained.) The Soviets had more of everything than we and our NATO allies; ships, aircraft, tanks, nuclear weapons, missiles, mechanized divisions, artillery, you name it. The bottom line is that we - and other nations were a bit cowed by the apparent power and creativity of the Soviet System.
Moreover the Soviets had skillfully used that, their 'peace-loving Socialist' propaganda, and the illusions of socialism as a remedy for the defects of capitalism to convince many people and nations in the world that the future was theirs. Virtually all of the new nations emerging from the debris of the various European empires chose Socialist models for their new independent development, despite the presumably benevolent legacies of their former British, French, Dutch, and Belgiam masters. The Soviets were successfully exporting and sustaining insurgencies in Central and South America and Africa. Notwithstanding the brutal repression of Eastern European uprisings in Poland, the GDR, Czechsolvakia, and Hungary, all this appeared to be succeeding, and worse, the Western European powers appeared to be thoroughly cowed by it all. Recall the enormous resistance to the deployment of nuclear-armed Pershing cruise missiles in NATO Europe - even following the very threatening widespread deployment of mobile SS-20s by the Soviets.
While it is true that both sides had more than enough weapons to destroy each other several times over, it is the difference in perceived capability and determination that influences others whose strategy is in part based on who they believe will win the contest.
Check out some contemporaneous writings by the various strategy & policy savants concerning Detente. The clear and consistent theme was that the US and the West were in decline vis a vis a vigorous Soviet Union and needed Detente and the time it would give them. The stagnation of the Brezhnev era was present, but it was clearly not yet evident in the West.
Reagan changed all of that. I was peripherally involved in some aspects of national strategy(and very deeply involved in Naval Operations) and knew many of the actors in the Reagan Administration. They all were clear that Reagan knew exactly what he was doing and why, and the written record that has since emerged has confirmed this.
georgeob1, I am not altogether postive about this but it is my understanding that some of the largest cuts in our military establishment came under the leadership of Bush the elder.
nimh
Your point re this board is a valid one - it seems unlikely that anything any of us writes here will alter the course of the heavier planets. But deep conviction and concern and activism will be reflected here if they are abroad in the culture.
There is no significant parallel between Italgato and Tartarin other than conviction. It is a very bad comparison and I reject it immediately.
One might argue that the notion which you and craven have protested (finding and using a catchy derogation, eg slick willy) ought more prudently to have been hatched and communicated ought of sight. But covert machination is what she did not do - she openly and bluntly proposed it. That honesty and forthrightness is one of the rather many reasons I respect this voice.
As to insults...I suggest each one of us has been guilty, though you do this less frequently than any of the other names noted in this post or among those who brave this subject area.
blatham wrote:I speak in defence of tartarin's post here.
First of all, I do consider that it's entirely possible that the US is on the cusp of becoming something rather ugly, both internally and externally. Later this evening, if I have time, I'll begin a thread on exactly that point, with reference to three essays, each by distinguished writers/scholars, which likely won't get read by many who'll pipe in anyway, but those writers don't bring good news. I think Tartarin is absolutely right to be yelling.
Second, though I was once convinced that reason, careful discourse and organization were the only proper tools of political action, I'm no longer certain that is enough, given what we face.
....
Above, george takes Tartarin to task, yet on another thread yesterday, he did precisely what he indicts as a matter of rhetorial course, by referring to the dem candidates as 'dwarves'. That sort of language trick is ubiquitous from the public voices on the right - name any one...Bennett, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Krauthammer, Sullivan, and on and on.
...
It is no longer clear to me that Queensbury rules are in effect, nor that sticking to them even while one is being kicked in the nuts is a sane course of action.
Well, its true that on several occasions I have referred to the Democrat candidates contemptuously as dwarves. These references are, as Blatham says, below the standard we wish for on A2K and below the standard I was applying to Tartarin. I have also been a little rough with Wolf on another thread, and with Italgato on several. In both of these cases I believe I was sufficiently provoked and was acting to protect some of the values we hold here on A2K. However, Blatham has found out and exposed my hypocrisy in all this.
However I do try hard to avoid mere epithets and at least supplement them when I do resort to them with reasoned arguments on behalf of my positions. This has the effect of at least exposing my reasons to the criticism & commentary of others - presumably the whole point of these threads. In several attempts at dialogue with Tart I have been unable to elicit much of that nature from her. On the contrary what I get is more epithets and now even a rationalization for their continued use to silence those who hold contrary views.
The notion that the views of others are so bad or dangerous that they must be shouted down, particularly when those views are well within the bounds of the general political debate is a bit dangerous. Past examples of the systematic application of this idea do not suggest that Tartarin and Blatham are in good company in this. This is not characteristic of Blatham, and I hope it is not of Tartarin either.
dyslexia wrote:georgeob1, I am not altogether postive about this but it is my understanding that some of the largest cuts in our military establishment came under the leadership of Bush the elder.
You are quite correct. The relative (%) cuts under Bush I and under Carter were about the same. However Carter's were done in the midst of the Cold War, and those of Bush I were associated with the successful end of that struggle.
and then we have this oddity of "republican" Bush the younger:
"researchers at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that is often aligned with conservatives, noted that federal spending--excluding military and entitlement programs such as Social Security--has risen 20.8 percent in Bush's years in office.
That rate far exceeds the growth in spending during the first three years of the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush or Jimmy Carter, according to Cato analysts Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven
But george.........remember when you called me an "ignorant bitch?"
(never mind that it's true.)
You know Lola I had a vague foreboding when I hit 'submit' on that post. It was that comment that was behind it - and you found me out.
However, in my defense, I believe I wrote that in a spirit of humor and even affection. (if one can say 'ignorant bitch' with affection). In truth I believe you are quite the opposite of ignorant, and, though it is clear that you are a - how shall I say it? - quite a sporty character, you are no bitch.
george
that was an hilarious post.
pot and kettle, I think, all of us
Sporty, yes, george......that's the word. Much better than Dan Ackroid's term of "slut" :wink:
Hilarious ??!!?? Hell, I was scrambling. Lola floored me with that one.
Lola wrote:pot and kettle, I think, all of us
I'll buy that. However, I think that Blatham is ever so slightly worse than me.
Quote:However, I think that Blatham is ever so slightly worse than me.
Blatham is the devil himself.
You WOULD NOT BELIEVE the cost of hiking boots for cloven feet!
Lola,
I agree. However I wanted to be extra nice. (I'm trying to shame Tartarin into saying something pleasant to me.)
Blatham -- Thanks for coming to my defense! You are being really polite opining that the US is on the cusp when in truth the ship of state is up to its scuppers in a Sargasso Sea of its own making.
My only charge -- directed (sadly) to NIMH and to George -- is of pomposity gone wild along with a sad humorlessness. Is it absolutely necessary to insert little yellow smiley faces to make sure Craven and others can get what's meant humorously and what's not? C'mon guys. Don't take it (yourselves, the rest of us) so seriously. Nimh, you're not along. We've all tried to keep the interesting discussions going.
I agree with Blatham about the Marquis' rules. The gloves seemed to have been off the fists of the Right from the get-go -- a depressing echo of Abuzz with liberals playing the earnest searchers trying to analyze what we considered a dangerous situation and winding up being called wimps and whiners (and conspiracy theorists) as well as being kicked in the nuts. There's been far too much aggression coming out of the supporters of the administration which, when countered, too often is met with a squeal of indignation -- such as we seem to be witnessing here. These are schoolyard bullies who can dish it out but can't take it. Little teapot tempests are created. Discussions locked down in a pet. Oh my.
Bill -- That's a good clarification about the gubernatorial papers. I'd been following (it's a continuing saga) the Texas story more or less, but missed the Dean story altogether until you put the pieces together.
Lola, Blatham,
Great riff. Thanks.
Tartarin,
So I am pompous and humorless, a schoolyard bully who can dish it out, but can't take it. Nimh too??!! And you are an earnest searcher, trying to analyze a dangerous situation !! Somehow I don't believe that is true.
You follow with something that I must admit seems like pure projection to me.
Tartarin wrote:.
I agree with Blatham about the Marquis' rules. The gloves seemed to have been off the fists of the Right from the get-go -- a depressing echo of Abuzz with liberals playing the earnest searchers trying to analyze what we considered a dangerous situation and winding up being called wimps and whiners (and conspiracy theorists) as well as being kicked in the nuts. There's been far too much aggression coming out of the supporters of the administration which, when countered, too often is met with a squeal of indignation -- such as we seem to be witnessing here. These are schoolyard bullies who can dish it out but can't take it. Little teapot tempests are created. Discussions locked down in a pet. Oh my.
I believe there is some fault to be found on all sides of this debate. Your criticism however, to the extent it has merit, is directed at the wrong side. I have encountered damn little earnest searching from you and even less analysis. Mostly I see terse, highly judgemental and derogatory characterizations and epithets, and almost no explanation, analysis or consideration of alternatives.
What an odd full-moon evening on a2k it has been...****-storms up and down the eastern seaboard; in the midwest, marriage proposals offered and accepted mere seconds before divorce is finalized; dianne and dys naked in public; the anti-christ in hiking boots...god, I love the smell of sweat and napalm in the morning!
